1.5 Litre Turbo Engines to return to F1?

I beg to differ Vig, it is in the hands of the driver to use, and that can vary from driver to driver at how well they can multi task as well as drive the damn things.

KERS had been used by some teams and by the end of the year IMO they were at a advantage with it, I do see your point though.
The costs well its Mosley IMO that helped run the bills up clutching at straws with no thinking quick fixes, KERS however was double edged, one for the green folk, and a boost for overtaking and defending.

 

KERS was useless. I'm thinking of a push to pass that's not limited. Let the teams go nuts for once. Make the button too extreme or use it too long, and you'll blow it up. I think it would be a step in the right direction in terms of passing.

The more I think about the 1.5L turbo engines, the more I think this could be something special. They would be road relevant and they would be fast. At the very least, the cars would become shorter and thereby not looking so horrifically out of proportion. BRING BACK INNOVATION!!!

Mark

 

KERS was useless, because it was rushed in, however by the end of the season Mclaren for one had it working fine

Agreed, but don't be to quick to abandon new tech if it doesn't work straight out the box.

Don't forget Mosley and his no testing crap, really was asking too much, in other words you can't have your cake and eat it.

 

I agree that the biggest problem with KERS was putting a limitation on it. If a team could make a system that would be able to be on for 75% of the lap then let them make the system. It really would have allowed for more engineering advances instead of having a limited amount of time KERS could be used each lap.

I for one wouldn't mind hearing the blow off valves hissing around the track from 1000hp+ monsters.

 

Lets not forget how much poorer Ferrari's F60 would have been without KERS onboard last season either!, It was about the only thing that saved Ferrari from complete humiliation!.

 

You can't say that absolutely. If Ferrari hadn't wasted the time on developing KERS perhaps they would have put together a much better non KERS package to make up for what they were lacking in engine performance.

 

IMO, they have to make fuel pay points. Everyone gets the same amount of fuel to run the race. At the end of the race the podium finishers' fuel is measured. The podium finisher with the most fuel remaining gets three points, the podium finisher with the second most fuel left gets one point.

This makes it advantageous for the teams to figure out how to win races, while conserving fuel. Regulations won't do it, only making conservation pay points will.

 

In general I like the idea of changes that create engineering challenges, whether or not they're considered to be 'green'. The question for F1, however, is what do they want to be? It's pretty paradoxical for them to champion ecological-minded changes when the inner-most circles to which they appeal are comprised mostly of the wasteful jet setting types. Like someone else mentioned--it's motorsports. I suppose it's possible to promote conservational technologies, but they need sensible plans that are more comprehensive, reaching beyond the track.

 

The problem with the F60 was that it's whole design concept and balance from the start was based around a single level diffuser and KERS batteries mounted in the nose to aid front end grip. In pre season testing, the F60 was noted as having sensational turn in ability due to the extra weight at the front.

Before the season started though, the FIA demanded that the batteries had to repositioned behind the driver on the grounds of safety (They didn't like the idea of several Kilo's of batteries flying off in the event of an accident). This compromised the mechanical balance of the car.

Next the double diffuser's were declared legal and Ferrari were forced to compromise the aereo-balance of the F60 by adding a double diffuser to it. These two compromises destroyed the entire balance of the car, making it incredibly difficult to set up, adjust and drive.

Had the batteries been allowed to remain where they were and the double diffusers been declared illegal then the F60 may well have been the class of the field.

As it turned out though, the F60 was horrifically compromised and it's main saving grace was it's straight line speed due to the KERS device. This is not just My opinion, Kimi Raikkonen and the team both admitted that without KERS, they would have seriously struggled.

 

Time to "save some money" boys!

 

Absolutely correct.

"Here's your BTUs. Figure out how to use them most efficiently."

Now we get some real thinking.

 

In sportscars, Groupe C endurance was run along these lines in the early 90s.
It didn't make for very exiting races, since everyone was trying to save fuel to finish the race. Many leading cars ended up spluttering during the last few laps too, and deserving drivers were robbed of their efforts.
That formula will make fuel mapping technology very costly in the end.

The best solution would be complete freedom in fuel volume, but a limit in fuel flow; drivers wouldn't run out of gas, but horsepower would be limited just the same. Several F1 engine builders have asked for it in the past.

 

Exactly

 

KERS was definitely useless, IMO. Too expensive, and what overtaking did it provide? Just at the start! The rest, it was nothing. The top teams were just using it to defend from non KERS users.

 

If you really want to get the FIA to consider this, please sign my petition online.
http://www.petitiononline.com/1976NA/petition.html

 

I can see a possible problem for Ferrari ( this is a Ferrari Forum, ). As one of the few constructor/engine builders, they could get stuck with a dud and have to pour mega bucks into re-development. If you remember Team Mac were using Porsche TAG engines and Williams were using Renault. I would welcome Audi to F1 but I would hate to see the sport go the way of LeMans cars with only one or two enginr builders able to win..

thats my two cents worth....A

 

Meh, I don't want this I bet the cars would be much quieter and sound like ****

 

I was at the first race Renault ever came to with their turbo - We laughed! - Bunch of stupid Gitanes smoking French dudes (what do they know about F1? ) with a tiny motor that was indeed "quiet & sounded like ****"......

However, while few things will ever compare to a Matra or Ferrari 12 or the V10's, by the end of the turbo era they were pretty darn good!...... I could live with 'em again.

Cheers,
Ian

 

I don't know, I suppose I better get used to it since F1 is "going green" now, whatever that means. I think they would be far worse than the current V8s sound wise and that would hurt the "show." I know for a fact the "sound and fury" of the cars was less dramatic after the V10 to V8 switch. I just really, really want to see development again instead of all this freeze rubbish.

 

I think going to turbo engines is a good move. Perhaps they give you a choice of Aspro, or turbo, adjust the displacement so they can compete... just limit the fuel amount.

As for Ferrari having problems with Turbo's??? remember the 126C2 - was the first car to win the Constructors championship - before Renault... they never did win with a turbo! Ferrari made a bunch of Turbo 208 gts - gtb's... and then the awsome F-40...

I think - and have said this for years now - the fundemental problem in F-1 is lack of creativity, and uniquness. there are too many rules on the designers... they need to open up the rule book.

Movable Aero -
multi cylinder engines up to 16 -18... wankle, hybrid, deisel etc...
turbo / supercharge
ceramic engine technology
ground effect
active suspension - active aero
fully automatic gear selection

I think the FIA need to build a box, that your car has to fit into, open wheel, Focus on maximum safety for the driver- no team can adjust the car during a race via electronics - fully monotored by the FIA & media... and let them at it. let the best team win.

With all the technology of today, F-1 is only taking advantage of a small percent. I maintain that if you build the worlds fastest and advanced race cars... then the best drivers will follow. if you want to do a real test of man and machine make each race 3 hours long. bring back re fueling and alow multi tire chagnes ..... my opinion!

 

The traditional arguments against loosening the design parameters have been cost and safety (cars would be so fast no circuit could be made safe enough).

 

Turbo's would level the playing field as far as engine technology, you could turbo a briggs & stratton and make big power. But thats not the problem with F1, and we all know it.

The FIA banned turbo's back in the day because power started to climb to dangerous levels, and nothing seemed able to stop it. The FIA threatened to reduce displacement to 1.2 liters, and it was shown through engineering that they could make even more power through reduction of pumping losses and internal drag by reducing engines to 3 cylinders.

They need to fix the play rules much more than they need to fix the engineering.

 

Well, if they teams were limited on the fuel they could use in a race, that would act as a horsepower limiter wouldn't it??

Mark

 

Kimi Raikkonen won SPA last year because of KERS.